SATISH KUMAR MITTAL,J - (1.) INITIALLY , this petition was filed under Section CPC, which in view of the Proviso added to Section 115 CPC is not maintainable. Hence, on the oral request of the counsel for the petitioner, this petition is treated as a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
(2.) THE petitioner, Neeraj Sharma, who is one of the defendant in the interpleader suit filed by respondent No. 1 under Section 88 CPC, has filed this petition for setting aside the order dated August 25, 2000 passed by the Civil judge (Jr. Division), Malerkotla vide which the application filed by the petitioner under Order 35, Rule 5 CPC for dismissing the suit as not maintainable, has been dismissed. In this case, the respondent society took the premises in dispute on rent from one Smt. Shanti Devi daughter of Thakur Dass, who was the owner of the same. Smt. Shanti Devi died in the year 1992. She was issueless. After her death, the petitioner Neeraj Sharma claiming himself to be the owner of the premises on the basis of the sale deed dated 26.7.1994, alleged to be executed in his favour by one Mahadev Singh son of Bhagwan Singh, who is turn claimed to be owner of the property of deceased Smt. Shanti Devi on the basis of the unregistered will dated 3.4.1991, filed an application for ejectment of the respondent society under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') i.e. Rent Petition No. 110 of 25.10.1994 on the ground of non-payment of rent. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a second petition on the same ground on 11.4.1996. Thereafter, on 17.7.1996, the respondent society filed interpleader suit under Section 88 CPC alleging therein that the Rotry Club, Malerkotla through its President served a legal notice dated 6.7.1996 through its Advocate upon the plaintiff claiming itself to be owner of the premises in dispute. In the said notice, he has advised the plaintiff not to pay rent to Neeraj Sharma as he is not the owner of the building in dispute and has also directed the plaintiff to pay the rent to the Rotary Club (defendant No. 2 herein). In the notice, defendant No. 2 threatened to initiate proceedings under Section 13 of the Act. In the plaint, it has also been averred that defendant No. 3 has also filed a rent application and civil suit with regard to the property in dispute though no detail has been given regarding the said application or suit filed by the said defendant regarding his claim on the suit property.
(3.) DURING the pendency of the above suit, one of the rent application has been adjourned sine die, and in another rent application filed by the petitioner, the tenant was directed to deposit the rent in the Court till the dispute is finally settled.;